Sexism, defined as “behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex”, is as pervasive in American culture as consumption is. In a society that is media driven, what is the impact of the media’s gendered language, idealized bodies and sexual stereotypes brought forth in an effort to get one to purchase a product? If sexism is truly ingrained into advertisements, what impact does this steady barrage of degradation have on the viewer, the intended

The image is visually arresting, clearly evocative of fellatio, and symbolically links the cosmetic with the promise of sexual allure. What Chanel is selling here is not simply lipstick; the imagery sends a message to the unconscious, granting permission to fulfill sexual wishes and points the way to an attractor than can facilitate the encounter. (143)

Several studies have shown that sexist ads themselves do not make viewers want to buy the products, but exist to gain additional time to expose the viewer to the product (Moog, 1990; Key, 1989). However, once the ad is cognitively processed, then what? Does the use of sexist ads bolster sales when they are seen as such?

What effect, if any, does all of this exposure have on people? Women are seen less as users, and more as decoration in most products. However, they are virtually always the users of domestic products and cleaning supplies (Artz, Munger, Purdy, 1999). This leads to an image of a woman who “is still seen as the lightly airhead, obsessed with the latest tampon breakthrough and pleasing her man” (Denomme, 1996). For example, Chanel marketed a line of lipstick and featured print ads for it. In the ad, a woman holds a fully extended tube of red lipstick between her teeth with her head back, eyes closed and an expression of pleasure on her face. According to Moog,

audience, and more importantly on the consumption patterns?

er consumption or cognition (Haberstroh, 1994). Therefore, advertisers have to be somewhat overt in their references, but not too much. Why do they seek the point of sexist enough to get attention but not so sexist it offends? The added attention from the consumer might be worth the risk to the producers of the ad if they could get by undetected. Sexist ads in and of themselves do not offend consumers; only the ones judged sexist by the viewer have a negative effect.

Unfortunately, the head-in-the-sand approach to dealing with these charges seems to be the industry norm. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., makers of Budweiser and Michelob beers are conspicuously silent about using females as objects in their ads, even though they have faced several consumer group boycotts because of these practices. The only mention they have made on the subject of women in their corporate literature available to the public is regarding their “Minority Purchasing Program” (www.anheuser-busch.com). In their current electronic and print media (www.budweiser.com), women are most often decorative objects rather than product users. This is yet another example of sexist objectification (Artz, Munger, Purdy, 1999).

The suggestion that targeting women or minorities, for example, is a malicious practice implies that these consumers somehow lack the judgment to make reasonable choices on their own and need special protection from advertisements versus

Some topics in this essay:
Abstract Sexism, Munger Purdy, Falk Mills’, Brown Williamson, Disturbingly Lavine, According Moog, Brewing Company, Sweeny Wagner, Multicultural Marketplace”, According Buttle, sexist ads, munger purdy 1999, artz munger purdy, munger purdy, purdy 1999, artz munger, gendered language, gender roles, sexual stereotypes, key 1989, sexism advertising, barrage degradation viewer, sweeney wagner, degradation viewer intended, viewer intended audience,